Court Denies Bid to Block Lindsey Questioning

The latest effort by the White House to block longtime Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey from answering investigators’ questions about the Monica S. Lewinsky matter met with almost instant rebuke Monday from an appellate court.

The White House had asked the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals here to delay enforcing its earlier ruling that the attorney-client privilege does not shield Lindsey, a deputy counsel, from testifying fully about his conversations with the president. But the appellate judges refused.

The White House immediately asked Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist to stay the order until the Supreme Court decides whether to review the case. Rehnquist last month rejected a similar request from the Justice Department to delay grand jury questioning of Secret Service employees.

The extraordinarily swift action by the full appellate court could be a sign that the judges have grown weary of a series of attempts by the administration to delay the questioning of potentially key witnesses in the politically charged case.

The White House appeal of the earlier ruling came just two weeks before President Clinton is scheduled to testify in the case. It was unclear Monday night when Rehnquist would decide whether to stay the order for Lindsey to testify. The chief justice could also decide to poll the full court on the question.

Despite the political symbolism of another failure by the White House to block grand jury testimony, the ruling may have little practical effect because Lindsey’s recuperation from recent back surgery likely would make him unable to appear before the grand jury any time soon.

In appealing the July 27 ruling by a three-judge panel, White House Counsel Charles F. C. Ruff said: “The attorney-client privilege is a bedrock principle of our legal system. The confidential nature of the attorney-client relationship is no less important in government than in every other context where it exists.

“Because of the importance of this principle for this and future presidents, as well as the executive branch,” the White House is appealing the 2-1 ruling by the appeals court, Ruff said.

Lindsey is a potentially important witness because he has long advised Clinton on sensitive matters, dating back to their days in Arkansas. Although Lindsey already has testified three times before the grand jury, he has cited attorney-client privilege in refusing to answer some questions.

In other developments, White House officials reiterated that Clinton would continue to deny having a sexual relationship with Lewinsky, and the FBI completed its testing of a key piece of evidence in independent counsel Kenneth W. Starr’s investigation of whether Clinton lied under oath about the relationship or encouraged others to do so.

And Lanny A. Breuer, a special White House counsel, was scheduled to appear before the grand jury today. Breuer is one of a handful of White House lawyers who has participated in mapping Clinton’s defense strategy.

Last week, Starr’s office turned over to the FBI a navy dress of Lewinsky’s that she has reportedly said was stained with the president’s semen. As the FBI clamped an unusually tight lid on the work of its laboratory, a source familiar with the procedures would not discuss the test results.

White House spokesman Barry Toiv said that he was not aware of any request the president had received to provide a DNA sample. If the dress stain is determined to be semen, a DNA sample from Clinton would be needed to determine if it was his.

As for the members of Congress and former White House staff members who have been giving the president public advice in television interviews, White House advisors expressed irritation, resentment and--for the record--steadfastness.

“Not a one of those people have a clue and yet they’re advising the president on what his testimony should be,” one senior advisor said. “How can they presume to tell a guy how to testify under oath?” To talk about the president offering a mea culpa is “getting a little ahead of ourselves,” he said.

Publicly, Toiv said, the president has spoken with his attorneys and is expected to “spend a fair amount of time” over the next two weeks preparing to testify. But he stressed that that does not indicate that the president will change his story.

“The president has told the truth about this and he will continue to do so,” he said. “I have no reason to think that that has changed in any way.”’

An official in the White House counsel’s office said the fact that the president will testify in the case “significantly diminished” Starr’s need for testimony from Lindsey.

“He [Lindsey] said he was not aware of any wrongdoing or criminal conduct by others,” the official said.

In asking for a review of the appellate court decision “on an expedited basis,” the White House was seeking to have parties submit legal briefs before the Supreme Court reconvenes Oct. 5. That way, the justices would have the papers when they returned.

“If we were not seeking expedited review, that would extend the time considerably,” the official said.

Toiv said that the White House was under the impression that other White House attorneys, including Ruff, would also be covered by the appellate court’s findings concerning Lindsey.

In its ruling, the appellate panel said that government attorneys cannot withhold from a grand jury “information related to criminal misconduct.”

The two-judge majority said: “A government attorney, even one holding the title of deputy White House counsel, may not assert an attorney-client privilege before a federal grand jury [if he has] information pertinent to possible criminal violations. The public interest in honest government and in exposing wrong by government officials” outweighs the president’s claim of privacy.

Lewinsky, meanwhile, underwent another day of questioning by Starr’s prosecutors. Her grand jury testimony could begin later this week.

Times staff writer David Willman contributed to this story.